I remain unclear on what the administration means by this announcement: https://n.pr/4bCWOpr. Cost effectiveness analysis is a way to quantify the cost of health benefits without putting a dollar amount on the value of those benefits directly in the way benefit-cost analysis does. But the health costs of exposure to pollutants or contaminants in treating the resulting cancer, cardiopulmonary disease, and other issues is significant. Nearly all pollution and contaminant exposure regulations are justified on the basis of offsetting these significant health costs. If we do not consider reduced health costs in the calculation, all regulations from limiting lead in food and water, to reducing toxic chemicals in the air might not be justifiable and would look oddly expensive. It may be hard to notice clarifications on this in the future given
EPA to stop considering value of lives saved and illnesses avoided
I remain unclear on what the administration means by this announcement: https://n.pr/4bCWOpr. Cost effectiveness analysis is a way to quantify the cost of health benefits without putting a dollar amount on the value of those benefits directly in the way benefit-cost analysis does. But the health costs of exposure to pollutants or contaminants in treating the resulting cancer, cardiopulmonary disease, and other issues is significant. Nearly all pollution and contaminant exposure regulations are justified on the basis of offsetting these significant health costs. If we do not consider reduced health costs in the calculation, all regulations from limiting lead in food and water, to reducing toxic chemicals in the air might not be justifiable and would look oddly expensive. It may be hard to notice clarifications on this in the future given
